Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Garmin G3X (merged)

G3X

Last Edited by Peter at 10 Mar 17:11
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Certification after development is impossible I am being told. Development needs to happen in a controlled environment and needs approval along the process.

One of the main arguments for Aspen is its form factor, the G3X cannot fit in two standard holes. A certified G3X wouldn’t really have a major impact, it certainly wouldn’t be much cheaper than the G500, Garmin has no need to destroy its own monopoly market.

Wot he said.
No, they can’t because it won’t fit into any legacy aircraft panel without massive work.
Even if the unit cost a few thousand less than a G500, the overall cost of the upgrade (labor, freight, paperwork, taxes and then some more labor) will be almost the same.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 10 Mar 17:26
Frankfurt (EDFZ, EDFE), Germany

The way I see it is that all these boxes only cost a few hundred quid to make, so the pricing is determined almost wholly according to where in the market you want to position the product. Obviously you don’t want to compete with yourself, etc, etc.

Yes the G3X is too big but that’s just a packaging decision.

Does development of light GA products really need to be controlled as it goes along? Is there a reference for that?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Designing certified avionics requires to make planning on forhand, and have the project approved before starting, both for hardware and software.
It’s like with the windows CE software, it just wouldn’t make the requirements of DO-178 and DO-254.

The G3X is low price because it is not certified.

If Garmin would design a certied G3X it would be much more expensive, and nog longer that attractive. G500 is the way to go.
The price of the Aspen units is hard to beat for certified products IMHO.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Something like this

LSZK, Switzerland

I am not so sure that we won’t see the G3X in certified aircraft.

The certification simplification currently underway in the US may result in these systems being allowed in (non-commercial) GA aircraft – just like new autopilot systems and so on.

I think we all agree that this is the only sensible solution. After all, thousands of US experimentals are flying IFR with these avionics every day, and I’ve never heard of any increased safety risk.

LOAN Wiener Neustadt Ost, Austria

That is a very interesting document, tomjnx, but I think I would need an MBA in trendy terminology to be able to read it At first I thought it was a spoof

The certification simplification currently underway in the US may result in these systems being allowed in

Yes – things are changing for N-regs. The Big Q is whether this will be a US airspace only concession.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I am not so sure that we won’t see the G3X in certified aircraft.

That’s a diffent situation, uncertified equipment in uncertified aircraft, which in my opinion is more likely to happen than the other way around that Garmin would certify the G3X.

I think we all agree that this is the only sensible solution. After all, thousands of US experimentals are flying IFR with these avionics every day, and I’ve never heard of any increased safety risk.

That is true, EASA also seems to go that way for some aircraft categories. I don’t think they will allow that for IFR flights though. Experimentals are national legislation, and not allowed for IFR in the Netherlands, I don’t see that they will change this soon.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

I’ve heard the opposite, that Tecnam had to add “classical” engine instruments because EASA wouldn’t allow those in the G3X to be used.

LSZK, Switzerland
46 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top